round vs. flat II: the recknoning

  • 119 Replies
  • 51388 Views
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #90 on: December 15, 2007, 01:04:31 AM »
phenomenon

round earth

flat earth


sun

a fantastically gigantic ball of gas powered by fusion; earth and other planets orbit in a non-geocentric universe [that made me giggle]

Probably a sphere, 32 miles in diameter, powered by fusion but burning at a slower rate than expected due to its incredible mass, orbiting on a plane roughly parallel to the earth's around a fixed point which is above the approximate center of the earth.

sunrise/set

an optical illusion makes it appear to visibly rise from and set below the horizon due to the earth's revolving around the sun.

An optical illusion makes it appear to visibly rise from and set below the horizon; a glare effect causes its apparent size to stay roughly the same as it moves across the sky.

solar eclipse

moon passes between the earth and the sun as predicted in advance by well-established orbital mechanics; only happens during new moon

Moon passes between the earth and sun as predicted in advance by well-established mathematical equations; only happens during new moon (as if that's somehow relevant).

lunar eclipse

earth aligns between moon and sun as predicted in advance by orbital mechanics; only happens during full moon

Shadow object passes between the moon and earth as predicted in advance by mathematical equations; only happens during full moon (when has an FEer ever claimed otherwise?).

shape of earth

spherical, slightly oblate due to rotation, finite mass and gravitation

Flat, theoretically finite mass (though we can never be sure unless we were to see the edge of the earth) and gravitation (whatever exactly you mean by that).

shape of sun/moon/planets

spherical

Probably spherical, but since we've never observed one up close we can't really be sure (although rotation is certainly an observable property of some planets with a powerful telescope, making them in all likelihood spherical).

other stars

similar to sun, of varying size and mass, scattered throughout the milky way in various non-random densities

Small motes of chemical energy in a layer above the earth rotating around the same barycenter as the sun.  They are fixed in place somehow so that they all make a rotation once every 24 hours.

other galaxies

similar to the galaxy in which we reside, the milky way; scattered throughout the known universe; formations of stars, gas, and dust; having various sizes, shapes, and aggregate masses; complies with observational evidence

Pretty much the same explanation as the stars.  They may be larger and on a higher layer.  Complies with observational evidence.

formation of earth and solar system

condensed out of gas and dust, orbits and rotations preserving original overall angular momentum

The earth condensed out of gas and dust, but somehow due to its mass (which is much larger than anything else in the observable universe) developed an extremely strong dark energy field, causing upward acceleration and ended up flat.  The planets simply formed out of gas and dust, developing their own much weaker dark energy fields.

sinking ship effect

through high magnification, the tops of sails of sailboats appear below surface of even calm water (e.g. toronto pics); due to curvature of earth, partially compensated for by terrestrial refraction

A trick of perspective caused by obstructions in the foreground progressively obscuring the boat from the bottom up, combined with the density of the atmosphere which causes objects to be obscurer the further away they are.

clouds lit by sun from bottom at sunset

at sunset the clouds are angled slightly away from sun due to curvature of earth, furthermore crystal-clear evidence that the sun gets "below" the level of clouds as it sets

Optical illusion; mechanism unknown.

satellites visible to naked eye crossing the sky at certain times on clear moonless nights

there are man-made satellites in orbiting around the earth; they reflect light from the sun when it is well below observer's horizon, during a range of time between dark, and before the satellites fall behind earth's shadow; usually dim (depending on satellite) but easily visible in motion against background stars with the naked eye

Strattelites, a fact well protected by the conspiracy.

north celestial pole, every object beyond solar system completes one orbit in one day

an easy-to understand artifact of earth's orbit; requires nothing extra to explain, and no magical physics that every object in the observable universe must obey

The stars are somehow fixed in place, probably in the same layer, so that they all complete their orbit in the same amount of time.  Requires no "magical physics" (lol).

south celestial pole

same as north, but in southern hemisphere; like the north, it's relative location in the sky is the same, at any time, any month, any place in southern hemisphere

like north, also star cluster of tiny chemical motes; Like the north, its relative location in the sky is the same, at any time, any month, any place in the southern hemisphere (Why wouldn't it be?  Isn't that what's observed?).

why do we see the same face of the moon

like every major moon in our solar system (and mercury with the sun), our moon is tidally locked with its orbited planet; like the other moons, "locked" is a slight misnomer as there is a slight wobble throughout the course of a lunar month

It... just doesn't rotate.

moon phases

unlit side of the moon as we see (the shadow) from 360 degrees, one night at a time, throughout the moon's orbit of earth

Unexplained (hey, we don't have all the answers, but who does?).

moon stays the same size as it crosses the sky

basic orbital mechanics predicts this [That's an answer?]

Optical illusion explained by glare (see: sun).

rotation of hurricanes depending on hemisphere

corilois effect as result of a rotating round earth

Coriolis Effect as result of celestial gears.

things experimentally weigh less high on mountains.

slightly smaller effect of gravitational attraction farther from the majority of earth's mass

Stars exert slight gravitation on objects on earth that is stronger the higher up the object is.

shape and size of earth determined regularly by global earthquake monitoring stations, and man-made seismic experiment

delays in and directions of primary readings, as well as secondary reflections and refractions, are consistent with a round earth

Again, unknown.

nasa photos

hundreds of thousands, if no millions of photos from hundreds of missions, with not a single one demonstrating something other than a consistent picture of round earth orbital mechanics

Every single one was faked, including those published in the '60s which were computer-generated or altered using secret technology that the public did not know about.

strange wanderings of planets over weeks, months, and years

round-earth orbital mechanics, of which earth is part of, worked this out hundreds of years ago, and with highly predictable precision decades ago

They move in unusual but predictable patterns, probably accelerated by their own much smaller dark energy fields.

seasons

easily explained with the tilt of earths axis and it's effect as the earth orbits the sun

Slight tilting of the sun's orbit above the earth.  The physics, obviously, must be interpreted differently from a flat earth perspective.

tides

gravitational effect readily predictable based on location of sun and moon relative to earth, and earth's rotation

Pretty much unexplained (the prevailing theory is a wobbling of the earth; also possibly an "antimoon" beneath the earth affecting things as the moon above the earth does), but perfectly predictable.

midnight sun in antactic circle

same explanation as perpetual night/day in antarctic - tilt of earth's axis relative to position in orbit

Optical illusion caused by reflection of the sun off ice crystals.


There.  It showed a typical round earth bias, but I fixed it with the accurate information.  :)
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 01:37:58 PM by The Great God Roundy »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #91 on: December 15, 2007, 03:11:47 AM »
lol, classic Roundy.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #92 on: December 15, 2007, 03:16:54 AM »
Also, RADAR.
Dumbshoe

?

tommo

  • 505
  • +0/-0
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #93 on: December 15, 2007, 04:59:56 AM »
add different hours of sunlight, that was never answered
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #94 on: December 15, 2007, 05:03:01 AM »
add different hours of sunlight, that was never answered

Pretty sure Tom has already answered it.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

tommo

  • 505
  • +0/-0
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #95 on: December 15, 2007, 05:07:51 AM »
could u direct me to this post ?
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #96 on: December 15, 2007, 05:18:59 AM »
Not sure where the post is but I'm pretty sure he's said that along with the circular rotation over the Earth, it also rises and falls in altitude. At least in regards to seasonal differences if that's what you're referring to.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

tommo

  • 505
  • +0/-0
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #97 on: December 15, 2007, 06:59:09 AM »
the circular rotation that's is impossible and the change in altitude after the FAQ says it is 3000 miles and nothing about change in altitude, that 1 ?
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #98 on: December 15, 2007, 07:08:58 AM »
the circular rotation that's is impossible and the change in altitude after the FAQ says it is 3000 miles and nothing about change in altitude, that 1 ?

The circular rotation is impossible?

As for the FAQ omittance, it's been long-stated that the FAQ is outdated and needs an update. Whether or not something is listed in the FAQ doesn't change the explanation's possibility.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

tommo

  • 505
  • +0/-0
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #99 on: December 15, 2007, 07:18:01 AM »
The circular rotation is impossible?

u talking about this 1



my question is; how dose it change between 3 different orbits ?

also, how dose the sun changing its hight make different hrs or sunlight ?

the hole sun setting, and different hrs of sunlight is doggy as hell in FET
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 07:21:05 AM by tommo »
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • +0/-0
  • exposer of lies
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #100 on: December 15, 2007, 09:54:35 AM »
the circular rotation that's is impossible and the change in altitude after the FAQ says it is 3000 miles and nothing about change in altitude, that 1 ?

The circular rotation is impossible?

As for the FAQ omittance, it's been long-stated that the FAQ is outdated and needs an update. Whether or not something is listed in the FAQ doesn't change the explanation's possibility.

then why all the screaming at newbies to read the faq?

it's a rhetorical question.  either fe'ers need to be more tolerant of noob questions that a modestly diligent search would not have uncovered (whether or not it has already been discussed - as almost any question or point of contention has), or update the faq.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #101 on: December 15, 2007, 10:29:39 AM »
The FAQ just provides a guideline, and a line of thought. A lot of simple and natural questions are answered in it, and while many ideas have been expanded and reworked, they still provide a nice basis for newcomers. But as stated many times, it's outdated and needs work.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

tommo

  • 505
  • +0/-0
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #102 on: December 15, 2007, 10:36:29 AM »
alot in the FAQ is wrong, simple as. and alot of the ideas have been changed because they have been proven wrong.
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • +0/-0
  • exposer of lies
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #103 on: December 15, 2007, 10:53:22 AM »
But as stated many times, it's outdated and needs work.

alot in the FAQ is wrong, simple as. and alot of the ideas have been changed because they have been proven wrong.

exactly.  which is why fe'ers and some re'ers should excercise a little more restraint before reflexively declaring to noobs: "read the faq", about questions that either are not addressed, or more often, not up to date.  or better yet, the fe'ers should get off their lazy arses and update it to reflect their current hypotheses.

or give me the damn keys to it, i'll update it.  ;-)

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #104 on: December 15, 2007, 01:42:50 PM »
But as stated many times, it's outdated and needs work.

alot in the FAQ is wrong, simple as. and alot of the ideas have been changed because they have been proven wrong.

exactly.  which is why fe'ers and some re'ers should excercise a little more restraint before reflexively declaring to noobs: "read the faq", about questions that either are not addressed, or more often, not up to date.  or better yet, the fe'ers should get off their lazy arses and update it to reflect their current hypotheses.

or give me the damn keys to it, i'll update it.  ;-)

I never tell noobs to read the faq unless it's extremely obvious by their post that they haven't (and this is often a very easy thing to judge).
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • +0/-0
  • exposer of lies
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #105 on: December 15, 2007, 02:01:16 PM »
But as stated many times, it's outdated and needs work.

alot in the FAQ is wrong, simple as. and alot of the ideas have been changed because they have been proven wrong.

exactly.  which is why fe'ers and some re'ers should excercise a little more restraint before reflexively declaring to noobs: "read the faq", about questions that either are not addressed, or more often, not up to date.  or better yet, the fe'ers should get off their lazy arses and update it to reflect their current hypotheses.

or give me the damn keys to it, i'll update it.  ;-)

I never tell noobs to read the faq unless it's extremely obvious by their post that they haven't (and this is often a very easy thing to judge).

of course i wasn't indicting you, roundy.

?

Althalus

  • 4062
  • +0/-0
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #106 on: December 15, 2007, 04:23:24 PM »
A+ thread, deserves sticky.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • +0/-0
  • exposer of lies
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #107 on: January 01, 2008, 02:30:06 PM »
what fes member owns the "milkncookies.net" domain?  the first page of this thread prompts multiple times for http login credentials to that domain.  i'm assuming it must be due to several pictures someone has linked to in the body of their posts.  (i don't have time to parse through the page html to find the offending poster.) 

the domain belongs to "betsy griffin" in shrewsbury, nj.

betsy, please fix your site or remove your links in your posts.

?

Logic hopeful

  • 215
  • +0/-0
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #108 on: January 01, 2008, 09:19:56 PM »
I've just noticed that The Engineer never answered the whole question about pendulums.  Just thought I'd point that out.

This thread took a while to catch up on, whew.

EDIT:  I'm not calling out The Engineer in particular, anyone in support of FET could address this.  I just noticed the pendulum thing seemed to die out after one of the trolls hit this thread.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 09:21:31 PM by Logic hopeful »
Don't try to argue with an idiot.  They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #109 on: January 02, 2008, 01:43:27 AM »
 ::)

Some of these people truly believe they are saying something that hasn't been said before, and that it quantifies the overarching belief that they have won the day.

The FE/RE debate does not exist.

Neither side shall win through to consensus with the other.
Neither side has 100% irrefutable evidence of the win.
Neither side presents credentials that typify a right or logical leg to stand on.
Neither side has the ability to remain objective and kind to one another.
Neither side wins.

The earth is deadlocked. GTFO.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2008, 01:45:22 AM by Midnight »
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • +0/-0
  • exposer of lies
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #110 on: January 02, 2008, 11:35:31 AM »
says assrape with 6,000 posts.  there is nothing in the forum rules or common netiquette that says fresher members can't engage themselves in debates you have tried and failed to win thousands of times before.  otherwise this site would grow stale.  not what fes wants.  and you would have nowhere to vent your post-pubescent hateful bile.

if this forum is so pointless, as you have pointed out in such angst-ridden juvenile detail, then why are *you* here?  i gotta tell you, if i had 6,000 posts on *any* site, i would expect to own any debate with calm assurance, every time, no contest.  yet you are still nothing more than a tedious screeching nuisance of hate and filth.  furthermore, 6,000 posts seems to be compelling evidence of someone who is terrified of moving on to new challenges.

is this site nothing more than a vehicle for you to passive-aggressively attack others with your tedious melodramatic, clever (in a first-year philosophy class sense), profanity-laden insults?  i have seen you contribute nothing positive - zip, nada, zero - to any debate or discussion.  and i've actually looked.  no new arguments, insights, or evidence; not even any new presentations of old data or metadata in new ways.

am i wrong?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #111 on: January 02, 2008, 12:22:12 PM »
says assrape with 6,000 posts.  there is nothing in the forum rules or common netiquette that says fresher members can't engage themselves in debates you have tried and failed to win thousands of times before.  otherwise this site would grow stale.  not what fes wants.  and you would have nowhere to vent your post-pubescent hateful bile.

if this forum is so pointless, as you have pointed out in such angst-ridden juvenile detail, then why are *you* here?  i gotta tell you, if i had 6,000 posts on *any* site, i would expect to own any debate with calm assurance, every time, no contest.  yet you are still nothing more than a tedious screeching nuisance of hate and filth.  furthermore, 6,000 posts seems to be compelling evidence of someone who is terrified of moving on to new challenges.

is this site nothing more than a vehicle for you to passive-aggressively attack others with your tedious melodramatic, clever (in a first-year philosophy class sense), profanity-laden insults?  i have seen you contribute nothing positive - zip, nada, zero - to any debate or discussion.  and i've actually looked.  no new arguments, insights, or evidence; not even any new presentations of old data or metadata in new ways.

am i wrong?

I sense a compelling and overwhelming irony to this post.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • +0/-0
  • exposer of lies
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #112 on: January 02, 2008, 12:42:32 PM »
that is really profound!

...but, where is the compelling or overwhelming irony to "I sense a compelling and overwhelming irony to this post."?  i'm not sure that self-recursion is inherently ironic.  pretty cool anyway though.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #113 on: January 02, 2008, 01:50:04 PM »
just sounded cooler with "compelling and overwhelming" in it.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #114 on: January 02, 2008, 03:37:33 PM »
says assrape with 6,000 posts.  there is nothing in the forum rules or common netiquette that says fresher members can't engage themselves in debates you have tried and failed to win thousands of times before.  otherwise this site would grow stale.  not what fes wants.  and you would have nowhere to vent your post-pubescent hateful bile.

if this forum is so pointless, as you have pointed out in such angst-ridden juvenile detail, then why are *you* here?  i gotta tell you, if i had 6,000 posts on *any* site, i would expect to own any debate with calm assurance, every time, no contest.  yet you are still nothing more than a tedious screeching nuisance of hate and filth.  furthermore, 6,000 posts seems to be compelling evidence of someone who is terrified of moving on to new challenges.

is this site nothing more than a vehicle for you to passive-aggressively attack others with your tedious melodramatic, clever (in a first-year philosophy class sense), profanity-laden insults?  i have seen you contribute nothing positive - zip, nada, zero - to any debate or discussion.  and i've actually looked.  no new arguments, insights, or evidence; not even any new presentations of old data or metadata in new ways.

am i wrong?

Yes because we all know that post count has meaning.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #115 on: January 02, 2008, 05:02:59 PM »
it does, for the shallow.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #116 on: January 03, 2008, 06:50:34 AM »
The gene pool requires water wings for some. :P
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

eric bloedow

Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #117 on: January 03, 2008, 08:23:13 AM »
if you want to read about really stupid people, try:
http://www.darwinawards.com/
those people improve the gene pool...by leaving it!

?

tommo

  • 505
  • +0/-0
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #118 on: January 05, 2008, 08:33:53 AM »
this thread wins
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

?

Chase_the_Bass

  • 170
  • +0/-0
  • Musical Master
Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning
« Reply #119 on: February 01, 2008, 12:34:32 PM »
Bump. Awesome.
A painter paints pictures on canvas.  But musicians paint their pictures on silence.  ~Leopold Stokowski